Yes, I think passive income is great. Most of my income is passive and I plan to keep growing that part of my life, but that doesn't mean it is a fool's errand to have a retirement account.
Another problem I have with the 401k is that "most" people leave it in the hands of fund managers who we're told know what they're doing. I'm one of those that leaves it to a fund manager as well. The biggest argument for the 401k is that the market will perform X% by the time you retire based on historical data. This assumes that trend will continue and that you don't unexpectedly lose a chunk of it as many retirees did in 2008.
Another problem I have with the 401k is that it's incredibly illiquid. If you take money out before you retire you're strictly penalized.
I'm not saying don't invest in the 401k. I invest in it, but only enough to get my employer's full match. If someone is offering you free money, you take it. I'm suggesting that it's better to take control of your own finances and earn enough passive income to live on. The 401k money should be a bonus, not the salary.
I have a question about the latter. Does anyone else notice that the retirement articles are always written by the same old school business journalists, in this case CNN Money?
I think this article illustrates a major difference between our generation (I'm 24) and previous generations. The retirement conversation always revolves around living off of a nest egg investment that will hopefully be enough to survive on later in life.
Let's change the discussion to be about earning income regardless of employment status. Anyone banking (no pun intended) on a 401k to sustain himself in 40+ years is nuts imo.